United States v. Faysuri Villamil , 585 F. App'x 301 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4246
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FAYSURI VILLAMIL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00277-BO-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2014 Decided: November 26, 2014
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Faysuri Villamil pled guilty to wire fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012). The district court
sentenced her to a Guidelines sentence of thirty months’
imprisonment. Villamil appeals, claiming that the district
court failed to adequately explain its reasons for denying her
request for a downward variance. We vacate and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In explaining a sentence, the district court is not
required to “robotically tick through . . . every subsection [of
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)], particularly when imposing a
within-Guidelines sentence.” United States v. Powell, 650 F.3d
388, 395 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
However, the court “must place on the record an ‘individualized
assessment’ based on the particular facts of the case before it
. . . [that] provide[s] a rationale tailored to the particular
case at hand and adequate to permit ‘meaningful appellate
review.’” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.
2009) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007))
(internal citation and footnote omitted).
Villamil argued at sentencing that a downward variance
was warranted because her conviction subjected her to
deportation, which would result in great hardship to her, and
because she had a good work history and no criminal record.
2
Although the district court mentioned some of these issues
during its questioning of Villamil, the court gave no indication
why it rejected her arguments for a downward variance and
selected the sentence it did, other than the statement that the
chosen sentence was within the Guidelines range. This statement
is insufficient to provide an individualized explanation of the
chosen sentence.
Accordingly, we vacate Villamil’s sentence and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We
express no opinion about the merits of Villamil’s request for a
variance. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3